From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com ([65.115.85.73]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1P92Ol-0003LK-8K for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:10:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Bug during kexec...not all cpus are stopped From: Alok Kataria In-Reply-To: <4CC0A204.4060403@zytor.com> References: <1286570087.8769.27.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286816964.1372.2.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286826083.1372.15.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20101011213901.GR12743@redhat.com> <20101012221717.GA27478@redhat.com> <1286929430.15658.30.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1287688156.27008.13.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <4CC0A204.4060403@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:10:06 -0700 Message-Id: <1287695406.27008.31.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: akataria@vmware.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "jeremy@xensource.com" , Daniel Hecht , the arch/x86 maintainers , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , LKML , Haren Myneni , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 13:26 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/21/2010 12:09 PM, Alok Kataria wrote: > > > > I don't think this patch was picked up for tip, now that the 2.6.37 > > merge window is open can you please pick this up push it upstream. > > This patch fixes a legitimate regression, which was introduced during > > 2.6.30, by commit id 4ef702c10b5df18ab04921fc252c26421d4d6c75. > > > > It probably would have helped if the patch had had a proper patch header > and so on, and *in particular* not buried in a tree with [RFC PATCH]. > RFC strongly implies that the patch is intended as a base for > discussion, and is explicitly not intended to be committed. I see, I have sent another mail with the patch. Thanks, Alok > > -hpa _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758193Ab0JUVKI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:10:08 -0400 Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com ([65.115.85.73]:52190 "EHLO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757954Ab0JUVKG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:10:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Bug during kexec...not all cpus are stopped From: Alok Kataria Reply-To: akataria@vmware.com To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal , "Eric W. Biederman" , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Haren Myneni , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Daniel Hecht , "jeremy@xensource.com" In-Reply-To: <4CC0A204.4060403@zytor.com> References: <1286570087.8769.27.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286816964.1372.2.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286826083.1372.15.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20101011213901.GR12743@redhat.com> <20101012221717.GA27478@redhat.com> <1286929430.15658.30.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1287688156.27008.13.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <4CC0A204.4060403@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: VMware INC. Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:10:06 -0700 Message-Id: <1287695406.27008.31.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 13:26 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/21/2010 12:09 PM, Alok Kataria wrote: > > > > I don't think this patch was picked up for tip, now that the 2.6.37 > > merge window is open can you please pick this up push it upstream. > > This patch fixes a legitimate regression, which was introduced during > > 2.6.30, by commit id 4ef702c10b5df18ab04921fc252c26421d4d6c75. > > > > It probably would have helped if the patch had had a proper patch header > and so on, and *in particular* not buried in a tree with [RFC PATCH]. > RFC strongly implies that the patch is intended as a base for > discussion, and is explicitly not intended to be committed. I see, I have sent another mail with the patch. Thanks, Alok > > -hpa